9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 99 - AT - CustomsProvisional release of the impugned goods - import of used Digital Multifunctional Printers / Devices (MFDs) (second hand goods) - non-compliance with the provisions of Domestic laws under the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Act, 2016 read with the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order (CRO), 2012 - failure to obtain DGFT authorization as required for the import of second hand goods, as required under paragraph 2.31 of the FTP, 2015-20 - failure to produce Chartered Engineer Certificate in complete. HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. KUTTY IMPEX 2022 (9) TMI 1049 - CESTAT CHENNAI , wherein it was held that the First Appellate Authority was correct in allowing the appeal thereby ordering provisional release of the goods in question, and since there is no change in the facts, the same is required to be followed in the case on hand as well. Following the above ratio decidendi, therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
Revenue's appeal against Order-in-Appeal allowing provisional release of impugned goods. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent-assessee and ordering provisional release of the impugned goods. The respondent had filed a Bill-of-Entry for clearance of used Digital Multifunctional Printers, which were subjected to examination to verify compliance with various regulations. The Adjudicating Authority found non-compliance with BIS Act, failure to obtain DGFT authorization, and incomplete Chartered Engineer Certificate, leading to the rejection of declared value, confiscation of goods, imposition of fines, and penalties. The appellant appealed against this order, and the First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, ordering provisional release of the goods, citing precedents from CESTAT and the Supreme Court. The First Appellate Authority's decision was based on previous rulings of the CESTAT and the Supreme Court, leading to the provisional release of the goods. The Adjudicating Authority had imposed penalties and fines due to non-compliance with various regulations related to the import of second-hand goods. However, the First Appellate Authority followed precedents that favored provisional release in similar cases. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, citing consistency with previous decisions and the need to follow established legal principles. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision to allow provisional release of the impugned goods, based on the precedents set by previous rulings in similar cases. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of following established legal principles and consistent application of the law in such matters.
|
